Tammy, that makes sense. It agrees with the idea that the time for fruit was in the past and not future as according to the supplied "yet." But consider that the cursing of the fig tree is toward the end of his ministry. I feel that his life and ministry are prophetic of the days leading up to the Day of the Lord. In Matthew the fig tree is in chapter 21 and chapter 22 has the marriage parable which clearly is concerning his marriage with the Church. Wouldn't you agree that his marriage is future? I don't think that the fig tree is out of context and timeline with the marriage in the next chapter.
Posts by hoj
-
6The cursed fig tree
by hoj inwhen jesus was hungry he looked to see if there were figs on the fig tree.
there weren't any figs, only leaves.
he cursed the tree so that there wouldn't be figs on it again.
-
-
-
45
Do other religions change doctrine?
by serenitynow! inafter visiting with a couple of jws over the weekend; and for the first time talking about my true feelings about the org with active jws other than immediate fam, one of them mentioned something interesting.
when i talked about how with the constant changes to beliefs that i find it impossible to believe that the gb can be guided by the hs.
so one of the jws said, "other religions change doctrines around too.
-
-
hoj
I would rather that the churches would change their doctrines. After much personal study my views changed, but my church didn't want to hear it. I didn't set out to change my views, and they didn't change because someone else converted me. So then what was I to do? I couldn't believe what I was taught. I couldn't find a church that believed what I believed. The churches wanted me in their church as long as I didn't feel a need to share my views. So I haven't been able to assemble with others without feeling raped (figuratively speaking).
I would like to find a church that rather than having a set of doctrines has as its purpose to seek out truth, whatever it is; whether or not it is what has been believed, realizing that there is clearly error in the churches since they don't agree with each other. Is there such a church?
-
6
The cursed fig tree
by hoj inwhen jesus was hungry he looked to see if there were figs on the fig tree.
there weren't any figs, only leaves.
he cursed the tree so that there wouldn't be figs on it again.
-
-
hoj
When Jesus was hungry he looked to see if there were figs on the fig tree. There weren't any figs, only leaves. He cursed the tree so that there wouldn't be figs on it again. One passage says that it didn't have figs because it wasn't the time for figs. The KJV, and probably others, supply "yet." But why would Jesus curse the tree for not having figs if it wasn't yet time for the figs? If the time for figs was yet future, wouldn't it be better to allow it to bear figs in its season?
Could it be that the time of its figs was in the past? Could it be that the tree was done bearing fruit? The tree had leaves only. I believe the leaves are like its garment (without the leaves the tree is naked), and I believe the garment represents its beliefs or doctrines. What good is a messenger if it has only doctrines but no fruit? I believe this was prophecy concerning our time. It is time for the tree to wither.
-
27
How error entered the religious world
by hoj inadam and eve were to eat of any of the trees of the garden except the one.
they must have been fruit trees, since they were to eat of them.
eating (and drinking) in the bible is figurative of partaking of a message.
-
-
hoj
Even if the garden account wasn't meant to mean what I understand it to say, the truth according to my interpretation can clearly be seen. There are problems with the literal reading of it, and every detail is meaningful when read as allegory.
Whose rules is it that we should read it literally anyway? Jesus spoke in parables and Paul said that some things from the law were allegory and even that Abraham and Sarah were allegory. In Proverbs it says that it is the glory of God to conceal a matter and the honor of kings to search it out. The whole Bible is allegory. If there is something that is only history, I would question whether it belongs in the Bible. Give the history to the historians.
-
27
How error entered the religious world
by hoj inadam and eve were to eat of any of the trees of the garden except the one.
they must have been fruit trees, since they were to eat of them.
eating (and drinking) in the bible is figurative of partaking of a message.
-
-
hoj
Gender reversal? I'm not sure what you refer to. Notice that Eve was deceived and Adam partook without being deceived. Eve represents those receiving the message and Adam represents the teachers. Eve received error from the serpent rather than the word from Adam. Adam partook even though he knew better (or at least should have).
This allegory seems to be related to the sons of God going into the daughters of men. The sons of God would be represented in Adam. The daughters of men are those who have been indoctrinated with men's doctrines. The "sons of God" are partaking of those doctrines by becoming one through the spiritual intercourse (the two become one flesh). The result is they begat giants. There have been many "giants of the faith" through the years. They were born through that fornication with the message of error.
I heard that there was another story of another mate that Adam had. I think her name was Lylyth or something like that. She told Adam he couldn't always be on top; she wanted to be on top. That is another way of saying the same thing. She wanted to be teacher even though she should be a receiver of the word.
-
27
How error entered the religious world
by hoj inadam and eve were to eat of any of the trees of the garden except the one.
they must have been fruit trees, since they were to eat of them.
eating (and drinking) in the bible is figurative of partaking of a message.
-
-
hoj
Darth, that is a good question. The rest of all the details make good sense according to my understanding. I don't want to feel like I am forcing something to fit, but I sort of feel that way with that verse. The way I make some sense of that verse is that God is saying that Adam and Eve have become as gods, and that should mean that they became creators. The only thing that they would be able to create is doctrines using the error they partook of. In that way they became gods.
It reads like God put them out of the garden. My feeling is that leaving the garden would be a natural consequence of partaking of the error. Because they partook of error they wouldn't go to messengers with the truth anymore. That message wouldn't make sense anymore. Their message now is as a flaming sword. As an allegory it isn't going to state clearly that they left on their own because they partook of error. That can be the reason it says that God put them out of the garden because they became as gods. It has to make sense without giving up the mystery of the allegory.
I think that verse is at least as much of a problem when you take it literally or with any other interpretation.
-
27
How error entered the religious world
by hoj inadam and eve were to eat of any of the trees of the garden except the one.
they must have been fruit trees, since they were to eat of them.
eating (and drinking) in the bible is figurative of partaking of a message.
-
-
hoj
Mad Dawg and anyone who wants to take the garden account literally, I have some questions.
What is a literal tree of life or tree of knowledge of good and evil?
Was the talking serpent literal?
How was it as according to Ezekiel that Pharoah king of Egypt was in the garden of Eden if Adam and Eve got kicked out before they had kids and nobody was able to get back in?
Also according to Ezekiel king of Tyrus was in the garden.
How was it that a river flowed out of the garden and divided into four heads? Rivers never do that, but rather come together to continue as one.
Where did this source river come from if it hadn't rained yet? It must have been quite a river to supply four rivers.
How is it that because Adam sinned it causes everyone to sin without exception. Is it like it became hereditary or something? I just don't see how it happens. Yes, I know, we are just to believe it is so. But it makes a lot of sense as according to allegory that error entered the religious world through teachers partaking of error and then teaching it to the new teachers. The error is duplicated in the churches and reinforced and expanded on in seminaries.
-
27
How error entered the religious world
by hoj inadam and eve were to eat of any of the trees of the garden except the one.
they must have been fruit trees, since they were to eat of them.
eating (and drinking) in the bible is figurative of partaking of a message.
-
-
hoj
That is what I was saying, Gary. Do a search on "sin" or "iniquity" through the Old Testament and see that it is contrasted in the passage with truth. The passages speak of falsehoods and false prophets in contrast with the truth. Also, that poison you mention. Paul said that a sign should be that we can drink poison and not die. If we are in truth and understand the lies, the lies won't take us into error. We can get bit by a deadly serpent and not be hurt. No matter what that deadly snake says, I won't believe it because I know better.
Some more detail with the garden. When they ate of the tree of error they realized they were naked and clothed themselves with fig leaves. The Book of Adam and Eve makes it clear that the tree of knowledge of good and evil was a fig tree. Jesus cursed the fig tree because it wasn't bearing fruit (that is another topic). They clothed themselves with fig leaves because they just ate from the fig tree.
So what is the nakedness, and what are the leaves? We wash our robes in the blood of the Lamb to make them white. Those robes are figurative and the blood is figurative, or else it would make them red. I believe our garments, or robe, represents our beliefs. The blood represents the teaching. We wash our beliefs in the teaching of Christ to make them white, meaning that we are in truth. They realized that they didn't have any doctrines to believe and saw Satan's message of error to be desirable. Without its leaves a tree would be naked. I believe the leaves represent its garment, or beliefs/message. So they clothed themselves with the message of Satan. Satan is the god of this [religious] world.
-
27
How error entered the religious world
by hoj inadam and eve were to eat of any of the trees of the garden except the one.
they must have been fruit trees, since they were to eat of them.
eating (and drinking) in the bible is figurative of partaking of a message.
-
-
hoj
Eating figuratively would be partaking of a message. Therefore the trees are messengers. We can see other places in the Bible where trees represent people.
Satan wanted them to eat of his tree, the tree that they weren't to eat from. If a message if "good" it would be truth. If a message is "evil" it would be error, lies, and/or deception. A messenger of good and evil would have some truth and some error. It doesn't take much error to turn the truth into a lie.
Now Adams field, which represents those he is teaching, brings forth thorns which are messengers of Satan. The message originated in Satan and now Adam is teaching his message and raising up more messengers for him.
The good messengers represented by the fruit trees they were to eat from are now as security guards with flaming swords. Their message is now threatening to them.
The truth illustrated in the allegory would take place over time, perhaps generations, where the congregation represented by Eve partakes of error and offers the error to the next generation of teachers, which actually were part of her.
-
27
How error entered the religious world
by hoj inadam and eve were to eat of any of the trees of the garden except the one.
they must have been fruit trees, since they were to eat of them.
eating (and drinking) in the bible is figurative of partaking of a message.
-
-
hoj
Adam and Eve were to eat of any of the trees of the garden except the one. They must have been fruit trees, since they were to eat of them. Eating (and drinking) in the Bible is figurative of partaking of a message. We can see that with meat, bread, honey, milk, water, wine, figs, etc. Therefore, a fruit tree would be a messenger. They were to eat of any of the messengers except the one in the midst of the garden.
It was Satan in the form of a serpent who wanted Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It seems Satan was the messenger represented by that tree. His lies seemed good for food and Eve partook of the message and shared with Adam. Because they have accepted the error they are put out of the garden and now the fruit trees with the message of truth and life are as security guards and their message is as a flaming sword. They want to slay Adam and Eve with their message so they can get to the Tree of Life, but Adam and Eve are afraid to approach.
The same message can be as fruit if you go to the messenger to partake, or it can be as a flaming sword if the messenger needs to come after you with it and it is different than what you believe.
Now the fields bring forth thorns. When Paul had an abundance of revelations he said that the thorn was a messenger of Satan. Satan taught the lie, Adam partook of it, and now Adam's field (congregation) brings forth messengers of Satan. They are going to repeat the message that Satan shared with Adam. This seems to be an allegory showing how error entered the religious world. Through one man error entered the world. That one man represents teachers in general and the woman represents those receiving the message.